Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 335
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Tathagata Roy @ Raju Roy – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 1362 of 2020 With CRAN 1 of 2020
Decided on : 11-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Anand Keshari.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Mr. Sanjib Kumar Dan, Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Mrs. Amrin Khatoon.
Validity of multiple FIRs and subsequent proceedings, abuse of process of law, and the requirement of facing trial based on prima facie evidence.
Headnote:
FIR - Quashing of Proceedings - Indian Penal Code - Sections 325/326/307/34
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against them in a case arising from an alleged assault on an MLA. The petitioner claims innocence and alleges political vendetta. The court notes the similarity between two FIRs and the addition of Sections 325/326 in the second FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashes the subsequent proceedings (FIR) but directs the petitioner to face trial in the prior case, finding a prima facie case against them.
Issues: Allegations of assault, similarity between two FIRs, addition of Sections 325/326 in the second FIR, and political vendetta.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relies on legal principles from T.T. Antony vs State of Kerala and Ors., Jagdish Yadav vs Ram Nandan Yadav and Ors., and Tarak Dash Mukherjee & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. to determine the validity of multiple FIRs and subsequent proceedings.
Final Decision: The subsequent proceedings (FIR) are quashed, but the petitioner is directed to face trial in the prior case. The trial court is instructed to frame charges against the petitioner and other accused persons.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings being A.C.G.R. Case No. 2608 of 2020 arising out of Nadial P.S. Case No. 81/2020 dated 30.05.2020 under Sections 325/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.
FACTS:-
2. The petitioner states that the allegations in the said FIR started on the basis of a written complaint by the opposite no. 2 is to the effect that:-
The received an information that on 26.05.2020 at about 5.30 pm, his father who is an elected M.L.A. of Metiabruz Constituency has been assaulted by some persons of Balartala who belonged to B.J.P Party on the issue of electric restoration, cut down due to the AMPHAAN cyclone. Due to the injuries received his father was shifted to C.M.R.I. Hospital for better treatment. He also came to learn that his father’s jaw and elbow has been fractured and his tooth was also broken due to the assault. He met his father on 29.05.2020 when his father told him that there was road blockade and when he got the information he went to the spot and on reaching there he was mercilessly assaulted by the FIR named accused persons due to which he received the injuries.
3. The petitioner states that he is totally innocent and has nothing to do with the incident. In fact the petitioner is completely in dark as to why the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with this case. In fact the petitioner is only aware that there was some commotion and the local residents had blocked the roads on 26.05.2020 due to non-restoration of electric supply even after 5 days after the cyclone and in that blockade there was some scuffles and taking advantage of that situation, the petitioner has been entangled in this criminal case. In fact on 30.05.2020 the same police station had registered a FIR being Nadial P.S. Case no. 78 of 2020 dated 26.05.2020 under Sections 143/147/148/149/353/188/427/307 of the Indian Penal Code started against accused persons including the petitioner. In the instant FIR started suo-moto by the police, the incident of MLA Mr. Abdul Khaliq Molla was also noted that he was attacked by a mob of agitated residents.
4. It is further stated by the petitioner that a second FIR has been initiated on the self same incident after 4 days, only to harass the petitioner out of political vendetta.
5. It is also submitted that the impugned proceeding does not disclose any ingredients of the offences so alleged against the petitioner in any manner.
6. Hence the revision.
7. From the materials on record it appears that:-
i) Initially Nadial P.S. Case No. 78 of 2020 dated 26.05.2020 under Sections 143/147/148/149/353/188/427/307 IPC was started in respect of the alleged incident on 26.05.2020.
ii) The case in the present proceeding being Nadial P.S. Case No. 81/2020 was registered on 30.05.2020, relating to the same incident.
iii) The allegations in both the FIR’s are the similar.
iv) Sections 325/326 of IPC have been added in the Second FIR.
v) The General Diary no. 1443 dated 27.05.2020 with reference to G.D.E. No. 1416 dated 26.05.2020 (page 20 & 21 of the revisional application) notes the details of the incident. In page 2 of the said G.D. it is noted as follows:-
“Those unruly mob who attacked Police personnel and Hon’ble MLA were identified as 1) Brij Bahadur Singh, S/o Ram Chandra Singh, 2) Guddu Pandey, S/o of Kushal Pandey, 3) J. Chandra Singh, S/o Nag Narayan Singh, 4) Suraj Singh, 5) Kartick Mondal, 6) Siraj, 7) Tathagata Roy @) Raju Roy, 8) Badal Gayen, 9) Zulfiquer Ali Bhutto, 10) Jahir, 11) Munna, 12) Satyabrata Mondal, 13) Chottu Pal, 14) Rajib Das and Others.”
vi) The petitioner has been named as an accused in both the cases.
vii) An eye witness, Atanu Dhali has named Suraj, Rajiu, Satya, Saddam, Rafique & more for the attack on the Local MLA.
8. This also corroborates the G.D. entries (page 20 and 21 of the revisional application).
9.
